Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 3 · Question 8

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
When a recession happens, companies can cut personnel costs by:
(1) Firing some people and not touching salaries
(2) Lower everyone's salary but not firing anyone

Option 1 results in less damage to morale, so that's what companies will do.

Answer Anticipation:
Most of this argument goes into describing the options available to businesses when there's a recession and they need to cut personnel costs. While it's good background, it's important that when you're dealing with an argument that has so much introductory/background information to focus on the conclusion and what supports it.

Here, the conclusion is that a business in this position is likely to lay off employees. Why? Because it'll hurt morale less. While that introductory information does set this up, the argument could have cut it all out and still ended up in the same place.

So once we cut the argument down to just the premise and conclusion, we can see that it assumes the business is making decisions based on the impact they'll have on morale. Any answer that establishes this will strengthen the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that companies base decisions primarily on their effect on employee morale, which supports that they'd pick the option that damages employee morale less. Since that's what the Economist argues, this answer strengthens her argument.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments frequently present a lot of extra details that aren't relevant to the conclusion, or at least to the logic that leads up to it. When you're analyzing an argument, start with the conclusion and work backwards to see what's relevant—statements are only important inasmuch as they speak to the conclusion.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about firing people or reducing their wages, not increasing those wages. This answer is therefore out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument is only about reducing personnel costs, and the conclusion isn't about overall profitability, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This argument seems to present a negative of the alternative method that the Economist says won't be used. However, the question asks us to strengthen the reasoning of the argument, not the conclusion itself. And since the reasoning presents a positive reason for going with one option over another, bringing up a negative of the alternative doesn't strengthen that reasoning. This answer would be more relevant in an argument that ruled out one alternative in picking another.

Incorrect. The long-term consequences of the decision are out of scope since the argument qualifies the conclusion by bringing up a situation where companies "must reduce" personnel costs. Since they must do it, they have no option.